• This page, Public Enforcement Letter 82-2: The Honorable Kevin H. White, Mayor, is   offered by
  • State Ethics Commission
Letter Ruling

Letter Ruling  Public Enforcement Letter 82-2: The Honorable Kevin H. White, Mayor

Date: 03/09/1982
Organization: State Ethics Commission
Referenced Sources: G.L. c. 268A, Conflict of Interest Law

Table of Contents

The Honorable Kevin H. White, Mayor

City of Boston
City Hall 
Boston, MA

Dear Mayor White:

As you are aware, the Commission has conducted a Preliminary Inquiry concerning possible violations of the state's conflict of interest law, 

Page 81 

G. L. c. 268A, arising out of a birthday party planned in honor of your wife, Kathryn, by members of her family for March 27, 1981 at the Museum of Fine Arts. That Inquiry focused on allegations that City employees and private individuals who did business with the City were solicited to contribute monetary gifts to that affairs. 

Having concluded its Inquiry, the Commission finds reasonable cause to believe that in connection with that party you failed to take actions required by Sections 23(d) and 23(e) of G. L. c. 268A as those provisions are interpreted by the Commission. The Commission has determined that an adjudicatory hearing is unnecessary in this case because there appears no substantial dispute about the facts essential to the rulings made herein. Therefore, the Commission has directed that this letter be sent to you and made public in order to insure future compliance with the law by you and other elected officials and public employees. That determination was made primarily in view of the cancellation of the party and return of the monetary gifts. The Commission also took into consideration the extent to which prior rulings might not have given you sufficient notice that your conduct in this matter violated the conflict of interest law.

The Commission's Investigative Findings

The Commission's investigation of the circumstances surrounding the planning of a birthday party for Kathryn White which was scheduled for March 27,1981, revealed the following: 

1. In January 1981, initial plans and arrangements were made to hold a birthday party in honor of Kathryn White on March 27, 1981. The individual primarily responsible for the party's organization and planning was Carolyn Connors, the sister of Kathryn White and a former consultant to the Kevin White Committee. The impetus for the party came from the Calvin family, of which Carolyn and Kathryn are members. You were informed of the plan to hold a birthday party for your wife during the initial stages of its organization, and expressed your view that a hotel was not an appropriate site.

2. On or about January 30, 1981, Mrs. Connors and Peggy Dray, a close friend of your family, made arrangements with the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, to use their facilities for the March 27th party. At the time that these arrangements were made, the Museum was advised that approximately 800-1,000 guests would be attending the affair.

3. During the first two weeks of February of 1981, Mrs. Connors and Mrs. Dray arranged to purchase and print 1,500 invitations together with reply cards and printed envelopes. Those reply cards included a statement which read "If you wish to contribute to the birthday gift celebration, make your check payable to the Birthday Celebration Committee." The name "Birthday Celebration Committee" (BCC) was adopted by Carolyn Connors. The BCC address was listed as 49 Monument Avenue, Charlestown, which is the residence of Mr. and Mrs. William Calvin, Sr., the parents of Carolyn Connors and Kathryn White. Mr. and Mrs. William Calvin, Sr. were not present in Massachusetts during the months of January through March of 1981. Reply cards and contributions mailed to that address were picked up by Carolyn Connors. Theodore Anzalone, Sr., a close friend of your family, and at that time the Manager of the Hynes Auditorium Commission, paid for the invitations. 

4. Carolyn Connors mailed invitations to the party during the last week in February and the first week in March of 1981. One of the documents used by the BCC to draw up the guest list was a 100 page listing of campaign contributors to the Kevin White Committee filed with the City Clerk or September 17, 1979, by William J. Calvin, Sr., as campaign treasurer of the Kevin White Committee. 

5. At precinct captain meetings in the City two ward coordinators announced that they could obtain "tickets" to the birthday party for anyone who did not receive a printed invitation and that invitees could contribute whatever amount they wished.

Further, an undetermined number of individuals who did not receive invitations contacted your office to obtain invitations and/or "tickets" to the affair. Those individuals were referred by your office to the BCC and/or the Calvin family. 

Page 82 

6. Prior to the cancellation of the party on March 26, 1981, the BCC had received at least $122,000 in contributions from 401 contributors.[1] Approximately $110,000 of these funds were received from 167 contributors who gave in amounts of $200 or more. Of the $122,000 in contributions collected by the BCC, $75,000 was received from 275 contributors who were City employees or members of their families.[2] An additional $35,000 came from 75 individuals and businesses which either did business with or were otherwise licensed or regulated by the City.[3] 

7. Approximately 100 of the major contributors (those contributing over $200) to the BCC were interviewed during the course of the Commission's investigation. Fifty percent of those major contributors interviewed were City employees. Most of those City employees held non-civil service positions in City departments under the supervision and control of your Office, were not personal friends of your wife, had never attended or been invited to any other parties or similar functions held in the past for her, and had never given her any gifts in the past. None of the City employees interviewed stated that they were pressured by anyone to make a contribution to the BCC. 

Of the 50 private individuals and businesses who made major contributions to the BCC, and were interviewed during the investigation, most did not characterize themselves as personal friends of your wife, had never attended or been invited to prior birthday parties or similar functions held for her, and had never given her any gifts in the past. Many acknowledged that their only connection with your wife was their relationship with you and the City, either as a contractor or licensee, and/or their relationship as contributors to your past election campaigns. 

8. On March 10, 1981, Kathryn White and Carolyn Connors selected and ordered 500 thank you notes for use after the party. 

9. On March 10, 1981, articles appeared in the Boston Herald American and the Boston Globe citing unnamed sources alleging that as many as 1,500 City employees and businessmen who did business with the City of Boston had been invited to the birthday party, and that some pressure was being brought to bear on City employees for contributions. On March 17, 1981, you responded to the media attention which had focused on this affair, and stated to news reporters that you had not heard any credible evidence that City employees were being pressured to contribute, and that if any such evidence were brought to your attention "heads would roll." You have testified that no one ever came to you with information or a complaint about such pressure. However, you made no attempts to find out from the BCC any details concerning who was being invited to this affair, how those individuals were being invited, who was involved in the invitation process, or who was soliciting or accepting contributions on behalf of the BCC. 

10. On March 26, 1981, the party was cancelled by the BCC at your request due to public reports of planned demonstrations and possible violence at the Museum of Fine Arts. At the time of the cancellation you announced on behalf of the Galvin family that the contributions made to the party would be returned. Substantially all of the $122,000 in funds known to have been contributed to the BCC, was returned during the period May 1,1981-June 30,1981. 

11. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence that you had direct knowledge of the specific individuals who were invited to this party and/or who were making contributions to it; nor was there any evidence that you had any personal or substantial role in the planning and organization of the party. You testified under oath, during the course of the investigation, that you here generally aware that the event was going to be held and of the size of the event, and that people were contributing or making gifts to the party. Other than that, you testified that your only personal involvement in the planning and organization of the party was your advice at 

Page 83 

an early stage concerning an appropriate site, and your involvement at the end when you stepped in to cancel the party because of the public safety problems that arose, You testified that you did not know who specifically was invited and who had contributed. You also testified that you did not ask Carolyn Connors or anyone else anything about who was being invited or was contributing to this affair, and never discussed with her who should or should not be invited to the party.

The Conflict Law

Section 23 of the conflict of interest law G.L. c. 268A sets forth standards of conduct for all public employees and officials. The provisions of Section 23 establish general guidelines and principles for the conduct of public servants and impose certain obligations not generally imposed on private citizens. Since 1978, when the Commission assumed administrative and civil jurisdiction over the conflict of interest law, the Commission has actively interpreted and enforced the provisions of s.23 at all levels of government. 

With respect to this matter, the Commission finds that your course of conduct regarding the birthday party planned for your wife was prohibited by Sections 23(d) and (e). Section 23(d) prohibits a public official from "us[ing] or attempt[ing] to use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for himself or others." Section 23(e) prohibits a public official from "by his conduct giv[ing] reasonable basis for the impression that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties." 

You have testified that you were not involved in the details of the planning of the party, that you had no specific knowledge of who was invited or what they contributed, and that you did not direct that anyone in particular be invited. However, you also testified, you "[were] aware the event was going to be held and the size of the event." You noted that it was "common knowledge" that "people were contributing or making gifts to the party." You were certainly aware that this was not going to be a private social gathering in someone's home. At an early stage in the planning of the party, you knew it would be held in a public place. In fact, you expressed your view to the planners of the party that you did not think a "hotel" was an "appropriate site." You also participated in decisions concerning the "security issues" surrounding the party. Moreover, there were other indications from which you should have realized the size and scope of the party. Your wife purchased 500 thank-you notes before the party. Employees at City Hall with whom you would be expected to have daily contact were planning to attend or had contributed. The party had been the subject of much media attention. Indeed, this attention focused on the question as to whether City employees were being pressured to attend and contribute. 

Based on the knowledge that you clearly did have, s.s.23(d) and (e) imposed certain affirmative obligations on you with respect to the fundraising aspects of this affair. The Commission holds: 

No public official who controls the jobs of large numbers of employees and the awarding of important contracts with vendors can permit a large event to be planned that will raise money for him or any members of his family[4] without making every reasonable effort to insure that there is neither direct solicitation of these employees or vendors nor pressure, either implicit or explicit, on such employees or vendors to attend and contribute. In addition, public officials must instruct those planning such an event that even unsolicited contributions from employees or vendors should not be accepted unless the circumstances make it clear that family or personal relationships are the motivating factors. 

For a public official to do otherwise results in the "use of his official position to secure unwarranted privileges . . . for himself or [his family]." In the Commission's view, people will be likely to contribute because of the importance of the official's position rather than any personal relationship with the family member. Moreover, the official creates, "a reasonable basis for the impression" that people ending and contributing would "unduly enjoy his favor". The impression is created that contributors will be rewarded and non-contributors may even be penalized in their dealings with government. 

Page 84 

Indeed, the very abuses that s.23 seeks to avoid were realized in this case, The party was viewed by many as a fundraiser. In fact, the guest list was drawn, in part, from the 1979 campaign contributors' list. The amount of money collected was dramatically inconsistent with the party's being a private social or family affair. Individuals who never met your wife gave amounts greater than they would be expected to give their own wife or their own mother, and, indeed, in some occasions gave the equivalent of almost a month's salary. Someone holding a major position of trust in public life must be charged with sufficient political acumen to realize that such occurrences are inevitable, and must affirmatively act to see that they do not occur: 

It is simply not enough to say that you kept away from direct involvement in the event and that no one complained to you that they felt pressured. Such pressure is implicit in the situation. The same pressure that would lead to their contributions would preclude their complaining about it. The kind of "hands off" approach you took is unacceptable and insensitive to the special obligations imposed on a person in your position.

Disposition

Based on its review of the evidence gathered during the course of this Preliminary Inquiry, and its application of the conflict- of-interest law to that evidence, the Commission has decided that further enforcement proceedings as regards your conduct are not required. Rather, the Commission has determined that its interpretation of s.23 of G.L. c. 268A, as applied to the facts set out above, should be disseminated in the form of a public compliance letter to serve as notice to you and to all other public officials and employees throughout the Commonwealth of the law's requirements. Any future actions by you or other public officials or employees inconsistent with the Commission's rulings set out in this letter will lead to enforcement proceedings, including, where appropriate, imposition of civil penalties. 

This matter with respect to your conduct is now considered close by the Commission. However, please note that the issuance of a Compliance Letter by the Commission does not preclude any other agency with jurisdiction over this matter from taking any action it finds appropriate. Furthermore, the Commission's determinations in this regard are based upon the evidence currently before it, This matter may be reopened at any time if substantial evidence of other conduct inconsistent with this letter is brought to its attention.

[1] $122,000 in contributions can be documented through bank records and partial records of the BCC which were obtained by the Commission during its investigation. However, several individuals interviewed during the investigation made contributions which were returned to them in the form of their own un-negotiated checks after the party was cancelled. These individuals were not listed on the BCC records as contributors, nor were their contributions reflected in any bank records. The number of these contributors would be virtually impossible to determine. 

[2] 92 of these individuals made contributions in amounts of $200 or more, totaling $66,000. Twenty-one Department heads and members of your staff were invited to the party and made contributions to the BCC. 

[3] 54 of those individuals and businesses contributed in amounts of $200 or more, totaling $33,000. 

[4] The Commission's ruling here, of course, does not relate to legitimate political fundraisers. Such events are regulated by other laws. See General Laws Chapter 55.

Referenced Sources:

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback